Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Restoration of RDF pay

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Can you take a redress against a civil servant (as they control pay rates)?
    You redress your Company Commander in the first instance unless its him your complaining about, in any event but DOD personnel are under the control of the Minister and so can be the subject of a complaint under redress procedures ( or so I have been told ) .


    Nothing to stop you putting in a redress, its your right to do so, and if you follow the exact proper procedure the MA are obliged to follow the rules in investigating same.

    While youre there any thought of answering a,b,c above ?
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by trellheim View Post
      You redress your Company Commander in the first instance unless its him your complaining about, in any event but DOD personnel are under the control of the Minister and so can be the subject of a complaint under redress procedures ( or so I have been told ) .


      Nothing to stop you putting in a redress, its your right to do so, and if you follow the exact proper procedure the MA are obliged to follow the rules in investigating same.

      While youre there any thought of answering a,b,c above ?
      So in that case you’d be redressing the Minister ?

      I’m not sure what you meant in your post? As in S3 wasn’t amended to take account of pay increases/decreases you mean?

      The amendment you posted deals with forfeitures from pay due to court marshal

      Comment


      • #78
        no you redress your company commander

        In writing and via Cpl/Sgt/CS as appropriate

        To Company Commander A Coy 355th Inf Bn

        Sir I am 1052222 Pte Murphy P under "insert exact redress verbiage - theres a specific form of words to be used here to open the lock" my pay is not correct as per R5 , and S3 etc etc. signed

        You redress a wrong not a person ;

        to the other point
        The amendment you posted deals with forfeitures from pay due to court marshal
        - yes it does. As I said, the subject for the amendment does not matter and should be ignored mostly ( i.e. courtmartials are not relevant here ) This is all about process.

        OK lets row back.

        As I asked - why is that amendment available from that search link ? Let me ask it differently ? What is the common characteristic of any documents available from that search facility. Answer : They have all been "Laid Before the Oireachtas" - that is the only reason.

        So.... why have they been laid before the Oireachtas ... the answer is in Post 72 towards the end. Have a look and tell me what you think. (we'll come back to b and c later )


        by the way this is all perfectly applicable to the PDF, S3 (PDF and RDF) and R5/R6 (RDF) all deal with Pay and Gratuities - what do people think the legal basis for them being paid is ?
        Last edited by trellheim; 4 December 2018, 20:28.
        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

        Comment


        • #79
          RDFRA had a meeting with Mil C&A last week (I think) not sure if it was discussed but don’t think it was the forum for it

          I know as fact that RDFRA are progressing this issue

          Comment


          • #80
            It should be brought up at both Mil and Civ C&A

            Comment


            • #81
              For clarity I have been reading the FEMPI acts and am starting to see the light. Somebody crossread with me . FEMPI 2009 http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/...evised/en/html ( and the other FEMPI acts ) and the 2017 pay act.

              Very importantly PDF are covered by FEMPI but RDF are specifically not mentioned.
              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                For clarity I have been reading the FEMPI acts and am starting to see the light. Somebody crossread with me . FEMPI 2009 http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/...evised/en/html ( and the other FEMPI acts ) and the 2017 pay act.

                Very importantly PDF are covered by FEMPI but RDF are specifically not mentioned.
                I'll try and find some time to read later in the week. The above makes sense. RDF pay is separate to PDF pay rather than pegged to it legislatively speaking which is the source of the issue. I'd imagine it would take some will on the part of the DoD and the Oireachtas to sort.

                Comment


                • #83
                  RDF pay IS legislatively pegged ( via Defence Forces Regulation R5 ) to PDF Pay - which is outlined in Defence Forces Regulation S3; this has never been superseded. FEMPI seems to do some severe messing by indirectly amending regulations "as if they had been amended " this is causing my brain to be severely taxed at the moment. However since RDF were never subject to FEMPI ( we are specifically left out of the definition of Public Servant) theres a black hole in the regulations.

                  Defence Forces Regulations are statutory instruments and have the force of secondary legislation
                  "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                  "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    And only the Minister of Defence can make DFRs (I assume)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      See FEMPI for what I mean
                      "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                      "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Essentially the RDF has been forgotten about. It's more likely that the RDF wasn't even thought about rather than being consciously omitted.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                          Essentially the RDF has been forgotten about. It's more likely that the RDF wasn't even thought about rather than being consciously omitted.
                          That is probably an accurate statement

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            I know as fact that RDFRA are progressing this issue
                            Define "Progressing"??? My experience of RDFRA is that this is just political double talk. Unless they specifically state how it is being progressed, then it isn't being progressed very far.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Poiuyt View Post
                              Define "Progressing"??? My experience of RDFRA is that this is just political double talk. Unless they specifically state how it is being progressed, then it isn't being progressed very far.
                              Neither you nor I have been at meeting between RDFRA and DoD/MA....

                              I know for a fact that it is not being pushed under the carpet

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Neither you nor I have been at meeting between RDFRA and DoD/MA....
                                Again, your point??? Why quote what I say and repeat it back to me as if you are saying something different.

                                As regards your 2nd point, I know for a fact that it is. But RDFRA stay quiet, so that their members will know no better.
                                Normal RDFRA tactics.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X